Occasional Papers eBook

may be that even yet we imperfectly understand our
wondrous Bible. It may be that we have yet much
to learn about it. It may be that there is much
that is very difficult about it. Let us reverently
and fearlessly learn all we can about it. Let
us take care not to misuse it, as it has been terribly
misused. But coming to us from the company and
with the sanction of Christ risen, it never can be
merely like other books. A so-called Christianity,
ignoring or playing with Christ’s resurrection,
and using the Bible as a sort of Homer, may satisfy
a class of clever and cultivated persons. It
may be to them the parent of high and noble thoughts,
and readily lend itself to the service of mankind.
But it is well in so serious a matter not to confuse
things. This new religion may borrow from Christianity
as it may borrow from Plato, or from Buddhism, or
Confucianism, or even Islam. But it is not Christianity.
Robert Elsmere may be true to life, as representing
one of those tragedies which happen in critical moments
of history. But a Christianity which tells us
to think of Christ doing good, but to forget and put
out of sight Christ risen from the dead, is not true
to life. It is as delusive to the conscience
and the soul as it is illogical to reason.

XI

Unbelief is called upon nowadays, as well as belief,
to give its account of the origin of that undeniable
and most important fact which we call the Christian
religion. And if it is true that in some respects
the circumstances under which the controversy is carried
on are, as it has been alleged, more than heretofore
favourable to unbelief, it is also true that in some
other respects the case of unbelief has difficulties
which it had not once. It has to accept and admit,
if it wishes to gain a favourable hearing from the
present generation, the unique and surpassing moral
grandeur, depth, and attractiveness of Christianity.
The polemic method which set Christianity in broad
contrast with what was supposed to be best and highest
in human nature, and therefore found no difficulty
in tracing to a bad source what was itself represented
to be bad, is not a method suited to the ideas and
feelings of our time; and the sneers and sarcasms of
the last century, provoked by abuses and inconsistencies
which have since received their ample and memorable
punishment, cease to produce any effect on readers
of the present day, except to call forth a passing
feeling of repugnance at what is shallow and profane,
mixed, it may be, sometimes, with an equally passing
admiration for what is witty and brilliant. Even
in M. Renan’s view, Voltaire has done his work,
and is out of date. Those who now attack Christianity
have to attack it under the disadvantage of the preliminary